1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/18536/ask-not-what-you-can-do-for-the-cloud-but-rather-what-the-cloud-can-do-for-you/

Ask not what you can do for the cloud but rather what the cloud can do for you

September 26, 2011 by

Today, the Manhattan Institute awards its Hayek prize to Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist. A shortened version of his speech appears in the Wall Street Journal. He makes the point that what is called the crowd-sourced cloud has always been a feature of trade and rising prosperity, and uses Hayek’s theory of knowledge as the basis for explaining how this is so. One person alone cannot create much of anything but by coming together through the division of labor, we can combined the knowledge that is dispersed among many people to create things that otherwise could not have existed. The coming together he is happy to call the cloud and these cooperative trading relationships he is pleased to call crowd sourcing. So these are not just features of the digital world, he argues, but are intrinsic to all market behavior. Crucial in the process are institutions such as property rights, contractual conventions, and pricing signals that work like light switches in what would otherwise be dark corridors. These institutions enable people to have points of contact and leverage their limited knowledge to achieve new kinds of production that is far more complex than they could achieve as individuals.

This is a very nice way of looking at the issue. These kinds of descriptions conjure up in my own mind a scene from a Busby Berkeley film of the 1930s, where dancers from all directions come together in a beautiful and orderly way. The camera then moves overhead to give a picture of the result, which is always an amazing and moving shape that no single dancer can see on her own. The dancer only continues to dance the part, knowing intellectually that she is part of some larger but always unaware of the final picture that is being formed. Everyone is essential. No one can make the shape alone. This is perhaps a weak analogy — the Berkeley productions are carefully planned and scripted but the Hayekian process is spontaneous and ordered only by conventions and institutions — but it roughly accords with what I draw from the picture of market operations that Ridley and by extension Hayek describe.

Reading this article, however, makes me wonder why there is such an intense focus on dispersed knowledge, relative individual ignorance, unconscious planning, and all of the persistent limits on the ability of individuals to intellectually conceive of the results of their actions. Ever since Kinsella/Boldrine/Levine and others have started to emphasis the role of learning from others in the market process — in the context of observing how IP regulations prohibits acting on leaning — I’ve culled through Hayek’s work to find his own take on the situation. But rather than finding discussions on how individuals learn from each other, how they draw on successful behaviors and replicate them, I keep finding that Hayek returns again and again to his focus on ignorance and the pervasive lack of knowledge of market participants. The “learning” that takes place within his description doesn’t seem to be individual learning but rather a kind of social learning that is on display only in the results. He seems far less interested in questions such as: how to individuals acquire more knowledge than they bring to the table, what do people do with new knowledge, how do people sort through information that hits them from every direction to put together a successful plan for action, and how do individuals respond to results that they can see from their own actions based on new knowledge?

We find these kinds of issues addressed by Mises when he speaks of recipes and free goods and the learning that takes place in the face of profitable market behaviors. Rothbard writes of the technological idea that is gained from market experience. They both seem to addressed this point about how individuals gain knowledge and do not just persist in ignorance. They are both interested in how market competition selects through good judgements and bad judgements to make sure that the best judgements prevail. The market  makes us all behavior more rationally by giving us new information we can really use in practical affairs. Hayek’s main concern seems to be the opposite: how individual ignorance persists even in the face of group learning. It’s as if he seemed to think that people never quite leave that state of blindness. Yet surely in real markets, ever-progressing  larning is the major feature. We get ever better at what we do.

I know that I’m drawing with a broad brush here, and if I’m wrong about this, I would love to see where Hayek actually does take up this subject, not just explaining how little we know but also explaining how we know what we do know and how we could about improving what we know by connection with others. I’m thinking in particular about some wonderful passages in Higgs’s book on the Gilded Age. He shows that the population movement from the country to the city generated a wonderful advantage of allowing people better access to communication and the sharing of technique and experience. Merchants could better learn from each other and apply what they learned in a completely rational and enlightened way. This opportunity had a great effect on economic growth, Higgs shows. In other words, the benefit of crowd sourcing in the cloud here is not just overcoming persistent ignorance through institutional cooperation but the opportunity to actively become less ignorant and to learn new skills, new techniques, and become better market players as individuals. If this theme appears in Hayek’s writings, I would be very much interested to know where. I get the point that people do not know enough to design a social order; I would like to see Hayek’s discussion of how the social order also improves what people do know so that people become more informed and rational actors by virtue of the new knowledge that the cloud provides them.

Any hints on where to look?


Troy Camplin September 26, 2011 at 3:57 pm

The individual learning is implied in the “social learning,” since society cannot learn anything. Social interactions reduce ignorance among those who wish to learn from those who know more.

Hayek focuses on ignorance precisely because he thinks it vital to emphasize that, no matter how much you learn, you are necessarily always in a state of ignorance of something. You can never know enough to plan an economy. That is the point of his emphasis on ignorance.

Even in The Sensory Order, his book on how the brain works, he makes the point that in order for us to conceive anything, we have to be in ignorance. We subtract to make concepts from what we perceive. Further, we cannot and do not perceive everything. Without ignorance, we could not create conceptions, meaning we could not theorize. Ignorance is necessary for real thinking to take place at all. (Which is why computers cannot think, insofar as they can “remember” everything — at least, until they are allowed to remember things through neural nets, at which point they will be able to think, even while not being able to remember things perfectly any more.)

In other words, if you don’t understand ignorance, you cannot understand how reasoning is possible, how concepts are formed, how spontaneous orders are necessary vs. created/planned orders for us to best make use of our resources, create art and literature, discover new things through science, etc. That is why Hayek focuses on ignorance.

Franklin September 26, 2011 at 4:32 pm

“These kinds of descriptions conjure up…. a scene from a Busby Berkeley film of the 1930s, where dancers from all directions come together in a beautiful and orderly way….
Everyone is essential.
No one can make the shape alone.”

Wonderful metaphor. Very nice.

Martial Artist September 26, 2011 at 6:02 pm

I would assume that you have read The Constitution of Liberty, which does talk about how the process works, although, IIRC, it doesn’t give many specific examples, particularly modern ones. I believe that he also touches on it in one or more of the essays in Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, but it has been several years since I read the latter. Whether there is enough in those sources to “slake your thirst” is a separate question.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Artisan September 27, 2011 at 4:11 am

I read a sentence by Hayek once (in the Road to Serfdom?) where I was puzzled by his concept that individuals have practically no other “individuality” than their physical experience, and thus that they could be theoretically replaced by “models”, only that this experience would be practically too complex to model. Maybe that’s the same thing described in your article?
While this may be true relatively, I found it a terrible or too much provocative way (by all respect) to put things. Anyways, I cannot pretend to ignore all the concepts of modern psychology: how they define a more complex human processes of interpretation, distinct from the knowledge itself.
Also, I have been somewhat puzzled by the account in Rand’s biography, of the novelist’s dislike for Hayek’s books as opposed to Mises’

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: